A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Weights
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nerd vs Muscle Discussion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 23rd 04, 02:45 AM
John M. Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

"Lee Michaels" wrote:

I got into a discussion about the limits and extremes of human intelligence
and athlethic ability or strength. The general argument goes something like
this.

Whatever super nerds exists out there, they generally have bodies to match.
They are not strong or athletic. And this is somehow a result of having "too
much" brain power.

The super atletes or strong have the same problem. If they got it
physically, they won't be all that smart.

The general consensus was that although there are some folks who are strong,
athletic AND smart, they are rare. And they do NOT include the super smart.

One could certainly argue that the reason these guys aren't all that
athletic or strongis because they don't train for it. But why train for
something if you don't have the genetic potential in the first place?

And the super athletes cwould naturally gravitate to what the are good at.
Which is the physical activity. And no amount of training would make them a
super nerd. It may make them more educated. But they will never be super
smart like somebody born to it.

Now I know this is UNXCIENTIFIC as hell. But a lot of folks feel that there
is only so many brain cells to go around. If you were a nerd, fine. If you
had very many more abilities, it cut down on the nerd potential.

At least that is the poop down at the water cooler.


I think it's more a function of time and environment, along with
genetic potentials. A child will naturally focus his time in
perfecting his best innate abilities, at least to the extent that it
gets him gratification, particularly in terms of positive attention
from his parents and his peers. Naturally smart kids will focus more
time on their studies and will get even smarter; naturally athletic
kids will focus more time on sports and become more athletic.

Of course, parental and peer pressures can modify a child's pursuit of
their innate abilities. Sometimes that works out well; other times,
it can really **** a kid up. Some kids will develop both abilities,
while other kids will be directed away from something they're good at
and forced into something at which they really suck. Parents with
personal agendas (usually ones vicariously imposing their own
insecurities onto their children) are often responsible for the
latter.
  #12  
Old March 23rd 04, 04:03 AM
PhatDaddy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

This is an interesting topic for me as I am a 6' 2" 350 pound computer nerd
that on occasion can put up 405 on the bench. Not nessessarly a genius but
a self taught network engineer and computer programmer. I grew up wanting
to be the biggest, strongest, and smartest. This is sounding really vain, I
can feel my head getting bigger. :-)

--
Ken Wayne
http://www.eworkouttracker.com


"John M. Williams" wrote in message
...
"Lee Michaels" wrote:

I got into a discussion about the limits and extremes of human

intelligence
and athlethic ability or strength. The general argument goes something

like
this.

Whatever super nerds exists out there, they generally have bodies to

match.
They are not strong or athletic. And this is somehow a result of having

"too
much" brain power.

The super atletes or strong have the same problem. If they got it
physically, they won't be all that smart.

The general consensus was that although there are some folks who are

strong,
athletic AND smart, they are rare. And they do NOT include the super

smart.

One could certainly argue that the reason these guys aren't all that
athletic or strongis because they don't train for it. But why train for
something if you don't have the genetic potential in the first place?

And the super athletes cwould naturally gravitate to what the are good

at.
Which is the physical activity. And no amount of training would make them

a
super nerd. It may make them more educated. But they will never be super
smart like somebody born to it.

Now I know this is UNXCIENTIFIC as hell. But a lot of folks feel that

there
is only so many brain cells to go around. If you were a nerd, fine. If

you
had very many more abilities, it cut down on the nerd potential.

At least that is the poop down at the water cooler.


I think it's more a function of time and environment, along with
genetic potentials. A child will naturally focus his time in
perfecting his best innate abilities, at least to the extent that it
gets him gratification, particularly in terms of positive attention
from his parents and his peers. Naturally smart kids will focus more
time on their studies and will get even smarter; naturally athletic
kids will focus more time on sports and become more athletic.

Of course, parental and peer pressures can modify a child's pursuit of
their innate abilities. Sometimes that works out well; other times,
it can really **** a kid up. Some kids will develop both abilities,
while other kids will be directed away from something they're good at
and forced into something at which they really suck. Parents with
personal agendas (usually ones vicariously imposing their own
insecurities onto their children) are often responsible for the
latter.



  #13  
Old March 23rd 04, 04:03 AM
PhatDaddy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

This is an interesting topic for me as I am a 6' 2" 350 pound computer nerd
that on occasion can put up 405 on the bench. Not nessessarly a genius but
a self taught network engineer and computer programmer. I grew up wanting
to be the biggest, strongest, and smartest. This is sounding really vain, I
can feel my head getting bigger. :-)

--
Ken Wayne
http://www.eworkouttracker.com


"John M. Williams" wrote in message
...
"Lee Michaels" wrote:

I got into a discussion about the limits and extremes of human

intelligence
and athlethic ability or strength. The general argument goes something

like
this.

Whatever super nerds exists out there, they generally have bodies to

match.
They are not strong or athletic. And this is somehow a result of having

"too
much" brain power.

The super atletes or strong have the same problem. If they got it
physically, they won't be all that smart.

The general consensus was that although there are some folks who are

strong,
athletic AND smart, they are rare. And they do NOT include the super

smart.

One could certainly argue that the reason these guys aren't all that
athletic or strongis because they don't train for it. But why train for
something if you don't have the genetic potential in the first place?

And the super athletes cwould naturally gravitate to what the are good

at.
Which is the physical activity. And no amount of training would make them

a
super nerd. It may make them more educated. But they will never be super
smart like somebody born to it.

Now I know this is UNXCIENTIFIC as hell. But a lot of folks feel that

there
is only so many brain cells to go around. If you were a nerd, fine. If

you
had very many more abilities, it cut down on the nerd potential.

At least that is the poop down at the water cooler.


I think it's more a function of time and environment, along with
genetic potentials. A child will naturally focus his time in
perfecting his best innate abilities, at least to the extent that it
gets him gratification, particularly in terms of positive attention
from his parents and his peers. Naturally smart kids will focus more
time on their studies and will get even smarter; naturally athletic
kids will focus more time on sports and become more athletic.

Of course, parental and peer pressures can modify a child's pursuit of
their innate abilities. Sometimes that works out well; other times,
it can really **** a kid up. Some kids will develop both abilities,
while other kids will be directed away from something they're good at
and forced into something at which they really suck. Parents with
personal agendas (usually ones vicariously imposing their own
insecurities onto their children) are often responsible for the
latter.



  #14  
Old March 23rd 04, 04:38 AM
Donovan Rebbechi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

In article [email protected]_s02, Lee Michaels wrote:

Here's an alternative theory":

Suppose that 1 in a million people get to be "super athletes", and also,
1 in a million get to become what you'd call a "super nerd". Assuming that
these two factors are no antagonistic, but *independent*, the chance of a
given "super athlete" also being a "super nerd" is 1 in a million. Likewise,
the chance of a given "super nerd" being a "super athlete" is also 1 in a
million. So that means that if you were to name all the "super athletes" you
can think of, it's almost certain that not one of them will also be a "super
nerd", leading you to conclude, perhaps, that being a "super athlete" prevents
one from being a "super nerd".

Now when you look at the population of celebrities in isolation, these factors
appear to be antagonists, because (most probably) not one of the "nerds" is
also an "athlete". But this ignores the fact that many of the "nerds" may
actually be somewhat athletic, but this is ignored because
(a) they're known for their nerdiness but not their athleticism and
(b) if they're only 1-in-100 athletic but 1-in-a-million "nerdy", then their
athleticism is still overshadowed by their nerdiness, and
(c) if they're only 1-in-100 athletic, then they're still not even close to the
"athlete" celebrities (who are 1-in-a-million athletic)

So even if these two factors were orthogonal, a naive observer could draw
exactly the same conclusions that you have.

In support of my theory, there are people like Jim Ryun (high school 4 minute
miler, US congressman), Jack Daniels (research scientist, olympic medalist),
Roger Bannister (graduate of Oxford med school and 4 minute miler), etc.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
  #15  
Old March 23rd 04, 04:38 AM
Donovan Rebbechi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

In article [email protected]_s02, Lee Michaels wrote:

Here's an alternative theory":

Suppose that 1 in a million people get to be "super athletes", and also,
1 in a million get to become what you'd call a "super nerd". Assuming that
these two factors are no antagonistic, but *independent*, the chance of a
given "super athlete" also being a "super nerd" is 1 in a million. Likewise,
the chance of a given "super nerd" being a "super athlete" is also 1 in a
million. So that means that if you were to name all the "super athletes" you
can think of, it's almost certain that not one of them will also be a "super
nerd", leading you to conclude, perhaps, that being a "super athlete" prevents
one from being a "super nerd".

Now when you look at the population of celebrities in isolation, these factors
appear to be antagonists, because (most probably) not one of the "nerds" is
also an "athlete". But this ignores the fact that many of the "nerds" may
actually be somewhat athletic, but this is ignored because
(a) they're known for their nerdiness but not their athleticism and
(b) if they're only 1-in-100 athletic but 1-in-a-million "nerdy", then their
athleticism is still overshadowed by their nerdiness, and
(c) if they're only 1-in-100 athletic, then they're still not even close to the
"athlete" celebrities (who are 1-in-a-million athletic)

So even if these two factors were orthogonal, a naive observer could draw
exactly the same conclusions that you have.

In support of my theory, there are people like Jim Ryun (high school 4 minute
miler, US congressman), Jack Daniels (research scientist, olympic medalist),
Roger Bannister (graduate of Oxford med school and 4 minute miler), etc.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
  #16  
Old March 23rd 04, 04:58 AM
MJL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:29:43 -0600, Lyle McDonald
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/39wpp

Lyle


I think women have a lot harder time finding sex than is commonly
believed. I think they put as much effort into it as men, in fact.


  #17  
Old March 23rd 04, 04:58 AM
MJL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:29:43 -0600, Lyle McDonald
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/39wpp

Lyle


I think women have a lot harder time finding sex than is commonly
believed. I think they put as much effort into it as men, in fact.


  #18  
Old March 23rd 04, 06:06 AM
geek_girl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

In MJL wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:29:43 -0600, Lyle McDonald
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/39wpp

Lyle


I think women have a lot harder time finding sex than is commonly
believed. I think they put as much effort into it as men, in fact.


LMGAO
  #19  
Old March 23rd 04, 06:06 AM
geek_girl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

In MJL wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:29:43 -0600, Lyle McDonald
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/39wpp

Lyle


I think women have a lot harder time finding sex than is commonly
believed. I think they put as much effort into it as men, in fact.


LMGAO
  #20  
Old March 23rd 04, 06:18 AM
Jeff Finlayson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nerd vs Muscle Discussion

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:

Here's an alternative theory":

Suppose that 1 in a million people get to be "super athletes", and also,
1 in a million get to become what you'd call a "super nerd". Assuming that
these two factors are no antagonistic, but *independent*, the chance of a
given "super athlete" also being a "super nerd" is 1 in a million. Likewise,
the chance of a given "super nerd" being a "super athlete" is also 1 in a
million. So that means that if you were to name all the "super athletes" you
can think of, it's almost certain that not one of them will also be a "super
nerd", leading you to conclude, perhaps, that being a "super athlete" prevents
one from being a "super nerd".


If the nerd and athlete traits are indepedent, the probability of both
ocurring in one person would be much less than 1 in a million like below.
It'd be (1 in a millon) times (1 in a million) or 1 in a million squared (10^12)
I beleive. This puts it in perspective.

Now when you look at the population of celebrities in isolation, these factors
appear to be antagonists, because (most probably) not one of the "nerds" is
also an "athlete". But this ignores the fact that many of the "nerds" may
actually be somewhat athletic, but this is ignored because
(a) they're known for their nerdiness but not their athleticism and
(b) if they're only 1-in-100 athletic but 1-in-a-million "nerdy", then their
athleticism is still overshadowed by their nerdiness, and
(c) if they're only 1-in-100 athletic, then they're still not even close to the
"athlete" celebrities (who are 1-in-a-million athletic)

So even if these two factors were orthogonal, a naive observer could draw
exactly the same conclusions that you have.


This is a reasonable theory, btw.

In support of my theory, there are people like Jim Ryun (high school 4 minute
miler, US congressman), Jack Daniels (research scientist, olympic medalist),
Roger Bannister (graduate of Oxford med school and 4 minute miler), etc.


Well that Jack Daniels wouldn't be the whisey distiller (Jack Daniel no s).

Cheers,

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Biomechanics of Muscle Nutrition Rob Bechard Aerobic 0 March 9th 04 01:43 AM
Nerd Report: new old muscle elzinator Weights 23 December 10th 03 05:27 AM
Stretching before Workout PageWithStuff.com Weights 19 December 10th 03 04:39 AM
DC Training (long) T-REx Weights 24 November 15th 03 03:19 AM
Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights? Robert Schuh Weights 41 November 9th 03 10:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.